Artifices

[Abaxial]

It might be useful to compile a list of artifices where bad game design mandates obviously sub-optimal play. Here are some:

Capturing a capital that you can't hold.
Normally, if you know you can't hold a city you have just captured, you raze it. But if it is a capital, you can't. Why can't you raze a capital city like any other? It makes no logical sense. It's just because Domination Victory is badly designed and requires that all capitals stay on the map. This also leads to the ludicrous spectacle of a barbarian army surrounding a capital and attacking it every turn. But they can't ever capture it, because they are artificially not allowed to raze it.

Winning a Diplomatic Victory when you have 19 points.
If you vote in favour of you gaining two more points, you will inevitably be outvoted and lose two points. The only way to win is to vote in favour of you losing two points, and vote heavily in favour of any other motions. You lose two points, but gain three for being on the winning side in three votes. This is nonsensical.

Protecting a CS from your ally.
If your allly starts attacking a CS that you are suzerain of, the only way to foil this is to place units on every hex around the CS so that the attacker can't get close without attacking you first. It looks ridiculous because it is ridiculous, but the game doesn't allow any other recourse.

Exploits are something similar, like using soothsayers to flood your own lands when you have the Great Bath, but exploits are something whereby you get a sneaky advantage. I'm thinking of cases where you have to do illogical things because of illogicalities in the game design.

 

[bbbt]

It might be useful to compile a list of artifices where bad game design mandates obviously sub-optimal play. Here are some:

Capturing a capital that you can't hold.
Normally, if you know you can't hold a city you have just captured, you raze it. But if it is a capital, you can't. Why can't you raze a capital city like any other? It makes no logical sense. It's just because Domination Victory is badly designed and requires that all capitals stay on the map. This also leads to the ludicrous spectacle of a barbarian army surrounding a capital and attacking it every turn. But they can't ever capture it, because they are artificially not allowed to raze it.

I think the instaraze feature plays into this as well. It seems bad design that if I capture your 20 pop city that I can't hold that you can recapture next turn I can just delete it from the map instantly. I'd probably return to either timed razes dependent on pop, but you can instaraze a free city.

The dom victory could just be changed to 'holds all remaining original capitals', it wouldn't require much of a tweak to be able to raze capitals.

Winning a Diplomatic Victory when you have 19 points.
If you vote in favour of you gaining two more points, you will inevitably be outvoted and lose two points. The only way to win is to vote in favour of you losing two points, and vote heavily in favour of any other motions. You lose two points, but gain three for being on the winning side in three votes. This is nonsensical.

I don't like the diplo victory in general, so I'd like them go with a different model overall.

Protecting a CS from your ally.
If your allly starts attacking a CS that you are suzerain of, the only way to foil this is to place units on every hex around the CS so that the attacker can't get close without attacking you first. It looks ridiculous because it is ridiculous, but the game doesn't allow any other recourse.

I similarly find it odd that you can be allied with two different Civs that are allied with each other.

I'd ideally like to see some sort of 'broker peace' negotiation option. If your ally declares war on one of your suzed CSes, you can negotiate a peace deal, and if that fails, break the alliance. Similarly if two of your allies are at war - if peace brokering fails you have to choose one.

But I'd be fine with some combo of 'allies can't declare war on suzed CSes' and/or a return of 'CS unit gifting'

 

[Thormodr]

Nothing wrong with the prohibition against razing capitals.

 

[Horizons]

Which one was it (Civ4 or Civ5) that allowed you to raze any city, but population decreased by one per turn (giving a chance for liberation)? That was far superior. Ah, it just seems like everything was better in the past

 

[Thormodr]

Which one was it (Civ4 or Civ5) that allowed you to raze any city, but population decreased by one per turn (giving a chance for liberation)? That was far superior. Ah, it just seems like everything was better in the past

Agreed. Much better system.

 

[vorlon_mi]

Which one was it (Civ4 or Civ5) that allowed you to raze any city, but population decreased by one per turn (giving a chance for liberation)? That was far superior. Ah, it just seems like everything was better in the past

I think that you're combining two memories.

Civ5 had the delayed razing (so did BERT), but since controlling the original capitals was still required for the Domination victory razing capitals was forbidden.

Civ4 allowed the player to raze any city, including capitals. It had both a "Conquest" victory -- eliminate or vassalize all the other civs -- or "Domination", where your civ (plus vassals) needed to be greater than X% of the total land and Y% of the total world population. The X and Y values depended on map size (IIRC). I'm speaking of Civ4 with both expansions; over in the Civ4 forums, they consider Beyond the Sword (BTS) to be the definitive version of the game. Vanilla Civ4 didn't include the vassal functions.

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

Being able to setting on resources. Means you don't have build the improvement and it can't be pillaged. I've build some certainly built some illogical cities to get resources.

 

[Zaarin]

Being able to setting on resources. Means you don't have build the improvement and it can't be pillaged. I've build some certainly built some illogical cities to get resources.

So have people in real life, to be fair.

 

[nzcamel]

Protecting a CS from your ally.
If your allly starts attacking a CS that you are suzerain of, the only way to foil this is to place units on every hex around the CS so that the attacker can't get close without attacking you first. It looks ridiculous because it is ridiculous, but the game doesn't allow any other recourse.

This is the only one of the three you list that I have a problem with. I think if you ally with someone, part of the price of that is not being able to attack their CS's.

 

[Equilin]

The dom victory could just be changed to 'holds all remaining original capitals'

this is definitely possible. In Apocalypse mode with "Comet Sighted", capitals can be wiped off the map, and DomV is still possible as long as you hold the remaining ones (including if it's just your own capital when others become craters)

 

[AntSou]

I think it's fine you can't raze capitals. There's a permanent option to liberate and bring that Civ back into the game.

Though this would probably work better with some sort of vassal/sphere of influence system.

 

[Abaxial]

So what do you think happens? A capital city has a sign on all the entrance roads saiying, "Razing of this city is forbidden! By order". Capital cities have been razed in history. Forbidding it is an artificial game mechanic, and it also means barbarians can't take a civ down, which should be possible.

 

[nzcamel]

So what do you think happens? A capital city has a sign on all the entrance roads saiying, "Razing of this city is forbidden! By order". Capital cities have been razed in history. Forbidding it is an artificial game mechanic, and it also means barbarians can't take a civ down, which should be possible.

There are many artificial game mechanics in Civ, like that building a wonder gives you a magical edge... So that alone isn't an especially strong argument against capitals being unrazable.
I'm not opposed to it being removed and the way domination victories are calculated changed again; but I also have no problem with how it is currently. Capitals are usually in good spots from a practical pov.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

There are many artificial game mechanics in Civ, like that building a wonder gives you a magical edge... So that alone isn't an especially strong argument against capitals being unrazable.
I'm not opposed to it being removed and the way domination victories are calculated changed again; but I also have no problem with how it is currently. Capitals are usually in good spots from a practical pov.

This may belong over on the "Unpopular Opinions" Thread, but it is one of my Basic Beliefs:
Artificial Game Mechanics are Bad Game Design that in a purportedly historically based game simply illustrate that the designers don't know their history or can't think of anything better than a "magical" solution to their game problem.

Save the Magic for the magical games.

 

[AntSou]

So what do you think happens? A capital city has a sign on all the entrance roads saiying, "Razing of this city is forbidden! By order". Capital cities have been razed in history. Forbidding it is an artificial game mechanic, and it also means barbarians can't take a civ down, which should be possible.

It's really not relevant to me. Keeping capital cities seems to have greater gameplay potential than razing them, imo. If we apply your logic to every facet of the game, we end up with no game at all. And how can a game mechanic be anything other than artificial?

I guess they could do something cool with razing capitals, like turning it into a "Ruins" tile which provides culture yields in later eras, or something like that. But if there's nothing to it, then meh..

 

[bbbt]

This may belong over on the "Unpopular Opinions" Thread, but it is one of my Basic Beliefs:
Artificial Game Mechanics are Bad Game Design that in a purportedly historically based game simply illustrate that the designers don't know their history or can't think of anything better than a "magical" solution to their game problem.

But whole game is artificial game mechanics (and has been since Civ 1). It's essentially a "God-game" with history theming.

The whole game design is predicated on an absolute centralized control of an empire (by an immortal, all knowing leader), who decides where new cities are founded, what's built, has perfect control of unit locations and movement, etc and starts in an essentially empty landscape. Don't get me started on the complete lack of any economy, trading fungible resources in one off deals, growth of cities being predicated by available food in the surrounding areas not economic drive, etc. It's largely detached from how human history developed in general. It's a bunch of fun (mostly) game mechanics given real-world branding for player engagement purposes.

Like how would someone play the game at all without rolling their eyes at everything?

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

But whole game is artificial game mechanics (and has been since Civ 1). It's essentially a "God-game" with history theming.

The whole game design is predicated on an absolute centralized control of an empire (by an immortal, all knowing leader), who decides where new cities are founded, what's built, has perfect control of unit locations and movement, etc and starts in an essentially empty landscape. Don't get me started on the complete lack of any economy, trading fungible resources in one off deals, growth of cities being predicated by available food in the surrounding areas not economic drive, etc. It's largely detached from how human history developed in general. It's a bunch of fun (mostly) game mechanics given real-world branding for player engagement purposes.

Like how would someone play the game at all without rolling their eyes at everything?

1. You might have noticed that I have mostly spent the last X years on these Forums criticizing the game and suggesting alternatives, and the majority of my complaints and suggestions have been based on the game's 'detachment' (Better Phrase: 'complete divorce from') human history.
2. I do play the game (or did, I haven't even opened it for months) while rolling my eyes or gritting my teeth. My dentist probably has stock in Firaxis . . .

- But this isn't only Civ: I've already uninstalled Old World and stopped playing Humankind because, if anything, they promised more and delivered less.

As to your specific comments, all are correct but in many cases unavoidable in any game that pretends to be playable or commercially viable: 'absolute centralized control' is required if a single person is going to play the game at all: realistic political control would largely be the game playing you and so the game would be neither played (more than once) nor sold. Economics has rightfully been called 'the dismal science' and so any game playable by un-dismal people will abstract and simplify economic factors until they largely disappear. (Full Disclosure: in my mis-spent youth I tried to make a game that included economic factors: it was ghastly except for masochists and economists, two populations that I am convinced overlap considerably)

 

[bbbt]

1. You might have noticed that I have mostly spent the last X years on these Forums criticizing the game and suggesting alternatives, and the majority of my complaints and suggestions have been based on the game's 'detachment' (Better Phrase: 'complete divorce from') human history.
2. I do play the game (or did, I haven't even opened it for months) while rolling my eyes or gritting my teeth. My dentist probably has stock in Firaxis . . .

- But this isn't only Civ: I've already uninstalled Old World and stopped playing Humankind because, if anything, they promised more and delivered less.

Fair enough Also given the games you've mentioned more positively like Anno, I think it's definitely a bit easier to get the 'pseudo-historical' aspects more accurate when both the time period and game aspects are more narrowly focused, versus Civ or Humankind's attempt to do all aspects of all of history.

As to your specific comments, all are correct but in many cases unavoidable in any game that pretends to be playable or commercially viable: 'absolute centralized control' is required if a single person is going to play the game at all: realistic political control would largely be the game playing you and so the game would be neither played (more than once) nor sold. Economics has rightfully been called 'the dismal science' and so any game playable by un-dismal people will abstract and simplify economic factors until they largely disappear. (Full Disclosure: in my mis-spent youth I tried to make a game that included economic factors: it was ghastly except for masochists and economists, two populations that I am convinced overlap considerably)

Yeah, I think that's sort of my broad question - how does one divide 'necessary' changes for practical enjoyment versus completely artificial mechanics so to speak.

I wouldn't mind if Civ did a little more pseudo-economics, but yeah, I think there's a reason most 4x games use say 'gold' to represent currency in general rather than say having each 'civ' able to issue it's own currency and manage monetary policy.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Fair enough Also given the games you've mentioned more positively like Anno, I think it's definitely a bit easier to get the 'pseudo-historical' aspects more accurate when both the time period and game aspects are more narrowly focused, versus Civ or Humankind's attempt to do all aspects of all of history.

I am constantly torn between my desire to somehow play the Grand Sweep of history - Civ, Humankind 4X games, and my certain knowledge that any such game, if playable at all, will be a steaming pile of compromises and simplifications with only the occasional sliver of 'history' peeking out of the pile.

Yeah, I think that's sort of my broad question - how does one divide 'necessary' changes for practical enjoyment versus completely artificial mechanics so to speak.

I wouldn't mind if Civ did a little more pseudo-economics, but yeah, I think there's a reason most 4x games use say 'gold' to represent currency in general rather than say having each 'civ' able to issue it's own currency and manage monetary policy.

I will be the first to admit that the division is completely and utterly Personal. There are some abstractions I have no trouble at all accepting, and others that make me crazy(er), and there's no 'rule' or reason behind the reactions.

Economics is hugely important to understanding the reasons behind historical events, and also hugely overlooked by people trying to explain historical events. I recommend John S. Gordon's Empire of Wealth, an economic history of the United States - read it and you will never look at American history the same way again. But it's also damn near the only readable economic book I've ever found, which is distinctly part of the problem.

My (tentative) conclusion is that to include Economics in any game (even Monopoly), you have to disguise it: make it part of the Trade and Diplomatic and Tax systems, and 'sneak' it into more of the effects and consequences of the Social and Civic systems. Whatever you do, don't make it a separate Thing, like an Economic Victory: economics is a necessary part of all the other types of Victory, whether it's having enough wealth to pay for armies or bribe foreign diplomats and City States, pay for Research, or pay to train more Missionaries and Apostles and slap up Cathedrals everywhere.
Parenthetically, one of the best 'inclusions' of economics into a game was in the old Railroad Tycoon, in which aside from building railroads and industries and hauling cargo and passengers around, you could also play the stock market, manipulate your own and other railroad company stocks and drive your opponents into bankruptcy almost regardless of how your railroad was doing. And economic 'game within a game' but, as you pointed out, also in a game severely limited in time and place in its design compared most of the 4x historicals

 

[nzcamel]

My (tentative) conclusion is that to include Economics in any game (even Monopoly), you have to disguise it: make it part of the Trade and Diplomatic and Tax systems, and 'sneak' it into more of the effects and consequences of the Social and Civic systems.

Monopoly of course being a terrible example of an economic game as it doesn't model anything resembling what people think it does. What you are describing fits Settlers of Catan well, where there is no money, and yet the subjective value of goods is easily worked out by older kids, and up, playing it, as they instinctively understand that to get another player to give them a rare good, they will have to part with more common goods.

Civ touches on that a little with it's resource management and trading; but it's easier to get that to shine in Catan as that is pretty much the main mechanic of the game.